Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
Sent from my iPhone On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: If the facility is a stand-alone facility whose primary purpose is not as a place to worship - but merely operated by a religious entity - such as a school, hospital, etc, then it is tagged as it currently is. I fail to see how some grass or parking lot around the church is the primarty purpose of worship, but then the school or kindergarden next to it where you actually pray etc. is not. That's really great. So according to the Wiki now the parking lot of the school and kindergarden is landuse=religious (because they are also used by the churchgoers), but they aren't. LOL. And if there is a amenity=school in the centre of a monastary I have to cut it out. Nice. If it is a small facility on the grounds of a church, just tag the building. If it is a stand-alone facility, then tag it as a school. You wouldn't cut out a space in a shopping center and declare it landuse religious just because the spot is rented by a church. And you wouldn't cut the parking lot off the mall when mapping the malls landuse - why would you cut off the church's?? Are we talking about the same OSM? I'm really confused. Javbw __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:32 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: OK, then lets write up a formal proposal. As I said, I'm not opposed, just sceptical that it will succeed. Do you propose something like - amenity=dump_station dump_station=fee You can recycle all sorts of existing tags, there is no need to invent new ones: amenity=dump_station fee=yes last_check:fee=2015-01-01 opening_hours=24/7 operator=Happy Camper Campground brand= website= dump_station:rinse_water=no wheelchair=yes payment:credit_cards=yes payment:bitcoin=yes note=24/7 access with credit card, else pay bitcoin or cash at the store during opening hours. phone=+15105551212 And look at the other dump station websites (http://www.sanidumps.com/ ) to see what they collect. Best would be to have an open source icon in SVG (Scalable Vector Graphic) format. And support is best in JOSM, iD, and the OSM Carto Stylesheet. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
On 18/02/2015 11:07 AM, John Willis wrote: Religious landuse is not about saying that the ground is religious, any more than saying landuse=retail is land that is for sale - it is for the land dedicated to a facility where people worship - just as retail is where people sell, and residential is an area where people reside - but there still is a building called a house and a shop. Javbw There are cultures where an area of land is part of their belief system e.g. Australian Aborigines. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
The only thing I got from your talk was that you don't like manmade landuses, or every facility you have ever mapped is a single use, single purpose shop, always separated from the other - never in a shared space that is named something differently. If you have one named facility - a shopping center made of 4 different retail buildings, you can't put a supermarket tag on the area. There is no building named abc shopping center - the complex's landuse is named that, and the buildings are the individual shops. To get into the fact that it is leased and whatnot starts to get into ownership, and it is not very representative of the situation. In this way, the mall landuse is showing general purpose and use - commerce through sales - and the shops themselves contain name data and purpose of the individual buildings. If there was a small playground, or a building that was a church in the complex (they have a space in the mall or shopping center, which is common) then the building would have the POW tag, but the main purpose of the facility - a shopping center - is retail sales. If I have a giant church complex, using a real life example - a large church grounds, fenced off - maybe 4 acres. 1/3 of the grounds is parking. A very large 6 story tall chapel, visible from several kilometers away. It is the POW for the facility, but only takes up maybe 20% of the land. There is a small office adjacent, a large multipurpose meeting hall and kitchen, and a small 2 story building with 6 rooms - the lower floor is a preschool operated by the church, the other is for Sunday school, storage, and other meeting rooms. There is a small playground as well. There is a courtyard in the center, and a large lawn, and a communications tower disguised as a religious tower, since it is on a hill. That is a single place with a single sign out front - a single facility, hence a single landuse - and a vast majority of the people come to visit the chapel. The rest is supporting amenities for the worshippers at the church - but do you worship on a playground? In the parking lot? On the grass? No, you go to the chapel for services. Religious landuse is not about saying that the ground is religious, any more than saying landuse=retail is land that is for sale - it is for the land dedicated to a facility where people worship - just as retail is where people sell, and residential is an area where people reside - but there still is a building called a house and a shop. There ARE tiny shops, tiny churches, and whatnot that putting the POW tag on the land, or putting shop on the land would be acceptable - but that system doesn't scale *whatsoever* to handle large multipurpose or multi-user complexes - and the system of landuse for the land, and then building and amenity tags on the various disparate things inside the area was created and used extensively in OSM to deal with conveying this complexity properly - and fits with the continuing trend of micro-mapping in OSM. Javbw On Feb 18, 2015, at 7:12 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 17.02.2015 um 22:40 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: Andreas Goss wrote on 2015-02-17 22:02: If people really continute to use this tag I will use it for everything run by the chatholic church in Germany, after all they are the largest private land owner... Then they can have fun with their church yards. the tag is about land_use_, not land_ownership_ AFAIK we do not want to tag ownership in OSM. and religious is no land use, exactly. fly wrote on 2015-02-17 22:14: I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any landuse. on which area description? I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or appropriate tag to the area. The same is true for supermarket with there own area including parking. No problem to tag the whole area shop=supermarket. For buildings we have building=*. Maybe we just lack of a proper tag to describe the area but landuse=religious is a poor answer. Anyway, we probably need more of the primary tags anyway as people look at things from different perspectives and we already have the same scenario with landuse=forest vs natural=woods vs land_cover=tree. As far as I understand there can be only one landuse but neither the proposal nor the wiki page really faces the problem especially regarding deprecating other landuse like cemetery without offering a replacement. it is probably for historic reasons that cemetery slipped into the landuse category. It would be logical to migrate it to amenities, such as graveyard. I understand landuse=cementry as a land use but not religious. Anyway we are using amenity=hospital for the whole area without any use of landuse. Cheers ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
Right- per the wiki: with few exceptions. The religious object is the ground. But that really applies to the other Millions of religious facilities with a building and a space around the worshipping facility. Javbw On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/02/2015 11:07 AM, John Willis wrote: Religious landuse is not about saying that the ground is religious, any more than saying landuse=retail is land that is for sale - it is for the land dedicated to a facility where people worship - just as retail is where people sell, and residential is an area where people reside - but there still is a building called a house and a shop. Javbw There are cultures where an area of land is part of their belief system e.g. Australian Aborigines. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 18/02/2015 11:33 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.com wrote: You can recycle all sorts of existing tags, there is no need to invent new ones: Exactly. If we adopt a top level amenity tag for our waste disposal problem the other tags normally associated with amenities can be used. fee=* access=* ... ... Cheers, Dave Not just 'associated with amenities' .. they can be used for anything.. leisure= for instance. Maybe there needs to be a wiki page on the 'universal associated tags'? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
Sent from my iPhone On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:50 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: Right- per the wiki: with few exceptions. The religious object is the ground. But that really applies to the other Correction : rarely Millions of religious facilities with a building and a space around the worshipping facility. Javbw Javbw Typing on my phone while grading papers is not conducive to proper spelling. On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/02/2015 11:07 AM, John Willis wrote: Religious landuse is not about saying that the ground is religious, any more than saying landuse=retail is land that is for sale - it is for the land dedicated to a facility where people worship - just as retail is where people sell, and residential is an area where people reside - but there still is a building called a house and a shop. Javbw There are cultures where an area of land is part of their belief system e.g. Australian Aborigines. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
If the facility is a stand-alone facility whose primary purpose is not as a place to worship - but merely operated by a religious entity - such as a school, hospital, etc, then it is tagged as it currently is. I fail to see how some grass or parking lot around the church is the primarty purpose of worship, but then the school or kindergarden next to it where you actually pray etc. is not. That's really great. So according to the Wiki now the parking lot of the school and kindergarden is landuse=religious (because they are also used by the churchgoers), but they aren't. LOL. And if there is a amenity=school in the centre of a monastary I have to cut it out. Nice. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin wrote: go with a new top level tag ... waste_collection=* - To say there is no support for a new top level tag waste_collection=* based on the talk here .. well there are lots of people not saying anything .. possibly they have nothing to add, or just see it as a good idea and may vote later or see it as a lost cause. I too would like to see them speak up - any direction they chose. But so few speak up. a few more vote. Warin, lets face facts, only you and I have spoken in favour of waste_collection=. Two have spoken against it. Need I remind you of the words of the OSM Guardians before they left this mortal world = Yea, be there but one nay vote, there must be no less than 10 and 5 votes, less the proposal be lost The First Wiki, chap 7, verse 4 waste_collection= is not going to fly ! So, we need to chose between * leaving it as it is - easy choice * Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now. * Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?) Honestly, by a small margin, I'd prefer middle option. If we move human waste out of waste= why not the others ? But I don't care ! Please, put something up for a vote and I'll vote for it. Just get it done, this has gone on for far too long. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: You can recycle all sorts of existing tags, there is no need to invent new ones: Exactly. If we adopt a top level amenity tag for our waste disposal problem the other tags normally associated with amenities can be used. fee=* access=* ... ... Cheers, Dave -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
Am 18.02.2015 um 07:18 schrieb Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place type to put waste cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another node if more than one type of waste is collected. On Wed Feb 18 2015 at 4:52:39 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin wrote: go with a new top level tag ... waste_collection=* - To say there is no support for a new top level tag waste_collection=* based on the talk here .. well there are lots of people not saying anything .. possibly they have nothing to add, or just see it as a good idea and may vote later or see it as a lost cause. I too would like to see them speak up - any direction they chose. But so few speak up. a few more vote. Warin, lets face facts, only you and I have spoken in favour of waste_collection=. Two have spoken against it. Need I remind you of the words of the OSM Guardians before they left this mortal world = Yea, be there but one nay vote, there must be no less than 10 and 5 votes, less the proposal be lost The First Wiki, chap 7, verse 4 waste_collection= is not going to fly ! So, we need to chose between * leaving it as it is - easy choice * Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now. * Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?) Honestly, by a small margin, I'd prefer middle option. If we move human waste out of waste= why not the others ? But I don't care ! Please, put something up for a vote and I'll vote for it. Just get it done, this has gone on for far too long. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another node if more than one type of waste is collected. Dump stations are often treated as amenities of a rest area or campground. They rarely stand alone: they're usually part of something else. The point of a standalone tag is that it has a clear focus. If thee's a recycling bin next to a dump station, that recycling bin can and should be a different node. The key should probably be sanitary_dump_station or rv_dump_station, to avoid ambiguity. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 18/02/2015 5:42 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another node if more than one type of waste is collected. A) The present waste= key is meant to be used under either the keys 'amenity=waste_basket' or 'amenity=waste_disposal', not to stand by itself. B) Dual tags of the one type on one node lead to confusion! For example; amenity=toilet fee=$5 fee=$15 Which fee do you pick? Same with amenity=waste_disposal waste=paper waste=dog_excrement They should be on different nodes to avoid one or more tags being dropped, or possibly one rendered symbol over writing another? Dump stations are often treated as amenities of a rest area or campground. They rarely stand alone: they're usually part of something else. The point of a standalone tag is that it has a clear focus. If thee's a recycling bin next to a dump station, that recycling bin can and should be a different node. The key should probably be sanitary_dump_station or rv_dump_station, to avoid ambiguity. sanitary .. can be taken as a female waste product... avoid in this use. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Nominatim mysteries
Hi, According to ticket 5278 https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5278that I filed, the problem is that translation is WYSI*N*WYG. An unknown person has to kick off the update at unknown times of which we just know that they are rare. Plus, the actual search is a bit more forgiving [than what you write]. Moreover, I don't understand in the reply The ones with operator 'in' on the other hand are necessary, nor why in is used all over the file beside - when the spec says: '-' means 'any' [in Boolean in or near]. Won't fix, don't expect to check your updates, usual fuzziness, I added a warning to the specs to at least spare people's time. Cheers André. On 2015-02-11 00:19, André Pirard wrote : Hi, Can anyone make sense out of this? About: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim/Special_Phrases/FR Two columns prepended to the table, second: Y=works, N=does not. All OSM queries are appended with the place name Dolembreux. Seeing that #1 works, I add the alternate #2 and it doesn't. Then I check recycling Dolembreux and it doesn't work. But recycling point Dolembreux does work. (OK, I see that phrase in the EN page, but...) Now if I add #5, it does work but #3 and #4 don't. Plus, all the prepositions in entries marked with ? seem unnecessary. The queries with or without them seem to return the same results; And yet, the specification page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim/Special_Phrases defines them. Am I missing something? André. 1 Y Point de recyclage amenity recycling - N 2 N Bulle à verre amenity recycling - N 3 N Bulle amenity recycling point - N 4 N Bulle verre amenity recycling point - N 5 Y Bulle à verre amenity recycling point - N 6 Y Point de recyclage amenity recycling - N 7 Y Points de recyclage amenity recycling - Y ? Point de recyclage àamenity recycling in N ? Points de recyclage à amenity recycling in Y ? Point de recyclage en amenity recycling in N ? Points de recyclage en amenity recycling in Y ? Point de recyclage dans amenity recycling in N ? Points de recyclage dansamenity recycling in Y ? Point de recyclage près amenity recycling near N ? Points de recyclage prèsamenity recycling near Y ? Point de recyclage près de amenity recycling near N ? Points de recyclage près de amenity recycling near Y ? Point de recyclage proche amenity recycling near N ? Points de recyclage proche amenity recycling near Y ? Point de recyclage proche deamenity recycling near N ? Points de recyclage proches de amenity recycling near Y ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast
2015-02-17 14:21 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Is there any difference considering the foundation of the structure ? Towers usually have one and mast not ? everything that has to put load onto ground will need some sort of foundations, of course masts do have foundations. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent
On February 17, 2015 4:56:26 AM CST, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 06:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: ... Trying to invent as few new tags as possible the updated proposal would become: * power_supply=nema_5_15 * power_supply:schedule= [...] - has syntax as defined for opening_hours Or * power_supply=nema_5_15 * power_supply:schedule= intermittent Or do you feel that power_supply:intermittent=yes is better than power_supply:schedule= intermittent? I prefer power_supply:schedule= approach, then a range of possible values including intermittent. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging If the power supply is given to frequent, unscheduled breakdowns, this is useful to know, but can't be covered by a schedule tag. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
Excellent job. Thanks for all your hard work. On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:10 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: I added two sections to the wiki - Purpose and limitations to try to spell out what we talked about. I also wrote that POW on an area as a landuse for most uses will be superseded by landuse=religious, and the POW tag is very important as a tag for a building or physical object that resides inside the larger landuse. I gave an example as to why that is the case. Please let me know if that clarifies the landuse sufficiently. PS I want to use the same exact line of reasoning For landuse=civic (civic_admin, civic_service). Javbw On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:51 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Feb 17, 2015, at 1:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-16 14:20 GMT+01:00 John Willis jo...@mac.com: So far I have not experienced a problem with adding religion and denomination tags to features operated by a religious community and have continued to use the same landuse I'd use otherwise on the same kind of feature (if any). What would I gain by adding landuse=religious? To map the _grounds_ of religious facilities where the predominant use is worship, and support facilities for the meeting and rituals and various things happen. OK, I think I finally understood the definition, and I agree that landuse=religious is a fine tag for these (e.g. including the parking of the church). IMHO the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreligious should be corrected to be as explicit as you have been here today. I'll try to update the wiki today (though I wasn't involved with this page's creation) and I'll ask for feedback here when I am done. The words ground of religious facilities and predominant use of worship are crucial here IMHO --- for instance a place where the politics or administration of a church are managed won't qualify under this definition (but should be tagged as commercial I guess, right? We could still add a religion tag there). Still there will be some strangeness in some cases, as we already have established landuse=cemetery, which might also qualify in some cases for landuse=religious. Although the churches in California I know of do not have a cemetery on the grounds, every single temple here in Japan does - even the ones in Tokyo, so finding a very old cemetery hemmed in by a 25 story building, a train line, a river, and residential housing (and still on the temple grounds) is common. There are stand-alone cemeteries as well, and most neighborhoods have little tiny 5x5m or so somewhat private cemeteries everywhere (every 2-300m or so) over all of Japan, so I am not saying they are all landuse=religious, but some larger ones on the temple grounds certainly are, and it is an amenity of the temple - it's a big deal/expense to have a family grave on the temple grounds. Can you have nested landuses? It is clearly part of the temple grounds, and clearly a cemetery. I would tag it that way, but I don't know if I'm breaking done rule by doing that. Javbw cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:32:21PM +0100, fly wrote: Am 17.02.2015 um 12:59 schrieb Richard Z.: Hi, RFC for aerialway=zip line is opened: This was a typo. True is aerialway=zip_line. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/aerialway%3Dzip_line Would not include the zip_line on playgrounds as playground=zipwire [1][2] is already in use and there seem to be some differences between a playground feature and aerialways. Otherwise you need to deprecate playground=zipwire. ok, I am in favor of deprecating playground=zipwire. Large share of aerialway ziplines are part of adult playgrounds. Technically there are no universally valid principal differences that could differentiate the two uses. Afaics no information is lost when playground zipwires are mapped with the more general aerialway=zip_line plus additional playground attributes. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast
Am 17.02.2015 um 01:07 schrieb Warin: On 16/02/2015 11:33 PM, fly wrote: Be careful some mast as support for wind generators might be entered. Thought antenna vs mast might be a problem but not mast vs tower. Should have added some picture. Please have a look at the pictures on [1] and [2]: An antenna is not a mast nor a tower, just as a wind generator is not a mast nor a tower. They may be mounted on top of a mast of tower .. but they are not towers nor masts themselves. Never said that a antenna nor a wind generator are masts or towers but if you want to tag the support=* we sill need to distinguish. - I like the easy distinction between mast and tower by the guy wires. If it is technically correct .. -1 Some structures (masts?) supported by guy wires, have internal ladders .. for maintenance of the supported item. +1 Is there any difference considering the foundation of the structure ? Towers usually have one and mast not ? Cheers fly [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selbststrahlender_Sendemast [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mast_radiator ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line
Am 17.02.2015 um 12:59 schrieb Richard Z.: Hi, RFC for aerialway=zip line is opened: This was a typo. True is aerialway=zip_line. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/aerialway%3Dzip_line Would not include the zip_line on playgrounds as playground=zipwire [1][2] is already in use and there seem to be some differences between a playground feature and aerialways. Otherwise you need to deprecate playground=zipwire. cu fly [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:playground [2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/playground=zipwire ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On 16/02/2015, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote: The width of the vehicle that could use the way can be wider than the way itself [...] Another example where width != maxwidth:physical is a twisty tunnel. The longer a vehicle is, the more margin it requires to be able to pass. So a tunnel with width=2.5 could easily have a maxwidth:physical=2. Width concerns the feature itself, maxwidth(:physical) concerns the vehicles using the feature. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Feb 17, 2015, at 9:14 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: It would also be good to have a tag for a site accepting household toxic wastes such as used batteries, cleaning chemicals, leftover paint, and the like. Here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, such substances are not supposed to included in the regular garbage pickup, or flushed down a drain. Instead, there is a single facility for the whole city, where such toxic products are supposed to be brought by the consumer (given the inconvenience, and the fact that you have to pay a $5.00 per visit tipping fee, I suspect that most of this ends up in the regular garbage collection anyway). Agree that it would be good for a tag for such a site. In my area some toxic items like used batteries and motor oil are picked up curbside along with the normal household rubbish as long as they are properly packaged (batteries in a bag on top of the recycle bin, used oil in a screw top plastic jug which they provide set on the curb). For other items like left over paint, pesticides, etc., there are monthly free drop off days at the local transfer station. No fee for residents for either as the cost is built into the regular trash collection. I can see where making it difficult with only one location and with an additional fee would greatly reduce use. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line
Richard Z. wrote on 2015-02-17 15:26: Otherwise you need to deprecate playground=zipwire. ok, I am in favor of deprecating playground=zipwire. Large share of aerialway ziplines are part of adult playgrounds. Technically there are no universally valid principal differences that could differentiate the two uses. Afaics no information is lost when playground zipwires are mapped with the more general aerialway=zip_line plus additional playground attributes. I see no reason for deprecating the playground feature for the sake of the big one. They can coexist peacefully, works well with playground=climbingwall and features tagged sport=climbing. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank. Bryce, I agree, my own interest here is I'm heading out on a trip, in an RV, in a couple of months. I'd like to map these things, need to know where they are. My particular interest here is camping and emptying my holding tank, but there is a huge list of other people who have some other pet need. I understand the community is (reportedly) reluctant to cater to each of those needs individually with yet another amenity tag. Maybe I am wrong, lets see who stands up ? It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with: 1) A strong clear definition 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a standard icon. 3) Has a large community of mappers behind it. However that said, the large mapping community for RV dumps is not on OSM: http://www.sanidumps.com/ http://openpois.net/ http://www.poi-factory.com/ http://www.rvdumps.com/ http://rvdumpsites.net/about/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/ra/RVStations.htm http://www.dot.state.mn.us/restareas/pdf/dumpstationslist.pdf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank. Bryce, I agree, my own interest here is I'm heading out on a trip, in an RV, in a couple of months. I'd like to map these things, need to know where they are. My particular interest here is camping and emptying my holding tank, but there is a huge list of other people who have some other pet need. I understand the community is (reportedly) reluctant to cater to each of those needs individually with yet another amenity tag. Maybe I am wrong, lets see who stands up ? There is a common icon: http://www.broomfield.org/images/pages/N331/blue%20heading%20icons_rv% 20dump.png Truth is, we'll need a lot of use before the rendering people can help. amenity=waste_disposal + waste=chemical_toilet is a nested tag, and far less clear. Someone searching for a preset for this might not find it. And it's not entirely clear exactly what the waste is (the toilet or the contents of the toilet)? Not sure I agree. If we document it properly, its searchable and pretty easy to tag. And we say amenity=waste_disposal and the waste is XXX. Agree I'd prefer a high level tag but its not bad like that, really. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line
Hi, RFC for aerialway=zip line is opened: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/aerialway%3Dzip_line Regards, Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
I'm lurking but you know where I stand on this tag. +1 for amenity=dump_station Cheers, Dave On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:50 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank. Bryce, I agree, my own interest here is I'm heading out on a trip, in an RV, in a couple of months. I'd like to map these things, need to know where they are. My particular interest here is camping and emptying my holding tank, but there is a huge list of other people who have some other pet need. I understand the community is (reportedly) reluctant to cater to each of those needs individually with yet another amenity tag. Maybe I am wrong, lets see who stands up ? There is a common icon: http://www.broomfield.org/images/pages/N331/blue%20heading%20icons_rv% 20dump.png Truth is, we'll need a lot of use before the rendering people can help. amenity=waste_disposal + waste=chemical_toilet is a nested tag, and far less clear. Someone searching for a preset for this might not find it. And it's not entirely clear exactly what the waste is (the toilet or the contents of the toilet)? Not sure I agree. If we document it properly, its searchable and pretty easy to tag. And we say amenity=waste_disposal and the waste is XXX. Agree I'd prefer a high level tag but its not bad like that, really. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On 16/02/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-16 10:42 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may use the feature +1, there is also the synonym maxwidth:legal (IMHO not advisable, as this is the same than the more used maxwidth) That's what the maxwidth wiki page states, but it is strangely inconsistent with maxheight. It really should be the same definition for both, and I think the height variant makes more sense. maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) Don't assume that legal = physical. For example, many roads have a default legal max but didn't bother setting a legal limit on individual chokepoints. When physical != legal, you may want to add the subkeyed tag for the bigger value (or both), but most data users will only care about the simple key. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
Having a landuse for “religion” seems simple to understand Oh really? Is every Kindergarden run by the chruch in Bavaria now a landuse=religious? What about office building run by the church? What if they overlap with other landuses? If people really continute to use this tag I will use it for everything run by the chatholic church in Germany, after all they are the largest private land owner... Then they can have fun with their church yards. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 07:19:35PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Richard Z. wrote on 2015-02-17 15:26: Otherwise you need to deprecate playground=zipwire. ok, I am in favor of deprecating playground=zipwire. Large share of aerialway ziplines are part of adult playgrounds. Technically there are no universally valid principal differences that could differentiate the two uses. Afaics no information is lost when playground zipwires are mapped with the more general aerialway=zip_line plus additional playground attributes. I see no reason for deprecating the playground feature for the sake of the big one. They can coexist peacefully, works well with playground=climbingwall and features tagged sport=climbing. it could coexist but there is no reason it should coexist - there is no fundamental technical or other difference between playground=zipwire and aerialway=zip_line. Exactly the same construction can be used on a playground or to cross a river. Deciding between the two would be always arbitrary and would not add any information which could not be added with other well known tags. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
Am 17.02.2015 um 22:02 schrieb Andreas Goss: Having a landuse for “religion” seems simple to understand Oh really? Is every Kindergarden run by the chruch in Bavaria now a landuse=religious? What about office building run by the church? What if they overlap with other landuses? If people really continute to use this tag I will use it for everything run by the chatholic church in Germany, after all they are the largest private land owner... Then they can have fun with their church yards. I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any landuse. As far as I understand there can be only one landuse but neither the proposal nor the wiki page really faces the problem especially regarding deprecating other landuse like cemetery without offering a replacement. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with: 1) A strong clear definition 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a standard icon. 3) Has a large community of mappers behind it. OK, then lets write up a formal proposal. As I said, I'm not opposed, just sceptical that it will succeed. Do you think such a tag will need its own subtags ? I'm thinking of things like fee, access to large vehicles, cassette v holding tank, hmm, what else ? Do you propose something like - amenity=dump_station dump_station=fee or amenity=dump_station:fee=yes Anyway, I'll support any reasonable proposal, we need a promotable solution. David PS - I suspect we can do better than any f the existing ones you listed below :-) http://www.sanidumps.com/ http://openpois.net/ http://www.poi-factory.com/ http://www.rvdumps.com/ http://rvdumpsites.net/about/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/ra/RVStations.htm http://www.dot.state.mn.us/restareas/pdf/dumpstationslist.pdf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
Please read the wiki page, especially the section on limitations. If the facility is a stand-alone facility whose primary purpose is not as a place to worship - but merely operated by a religious entity - such as a school, hospital, etc, then it is tagged as it currently is. If the facility's main purpose is that of worship, and that facility happens to have - as an amenity to the larger facility - a day care, preschool, Sunday school, in a small room or building that is part of the larger complex for a church or other large religious facility where the primary purpose is the gathering of people to practice their religion/worship - then the religious landuse is used for that complex - and the POW tag is placed on the church building itself. Just as a Mall is landuse=retail and one of the tenants may be a church, a church grounds may have a small educational amenity, a shop for religious trinkets, a small office, a meeting hall, a boiler or other mechanical support, lawns, parking, playground, etc - all are amenities that support the visitors to the main worship building/object - and are all part of a single named landuse - but the POW is a single (usually) building. Being able to say this area is used for a religious worship facility and also say this is the exact spot of the place of worship is immensely useful. It also allows for mixed denominations, mixed religions, and different names to be applied to different POWs - while not implying that all the buildings and amenities onsite are actually POWs - there's no worshiping going on in the parking lot, in the boiler room, on the lawn - you go inside this particular building or go to this particular idol to do your worshipping. I hope this clarifies it for you. Javbw Sent from my iPhone On Feb 18, 2015, at 6:02 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Having a landuse for “religion” seems simple to understand Oh really? Is every Kindergarden run by the chruch in Bavaria now a landuse=religious? What about office building run by the church? What if they overlap with other landuses? If people really continute to use this tag I will use it for everything run by the chatholic church in Germany, after all they are the largest private land owner... Then they can have fun with their church yards. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 18/02/2015 8:32 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with: 1) A strong clear definition 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a standard icon. 3) Has a large community of mappers behind it. OK, then lets write up a formal proposal. As I said, I'm not opposed, just sceptical that it will succeed. Do you think such a tag will need its own subtags ? I'm thinking of things like fee, access to large vehicles, cassette v holding tank, hmm, what else ? Do you propose something like - amenity=dump_station dump_station=fee or amenity=dump_station:fee=yes Should not the present tags be used?! fee= as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fee That avoids a lot of duplication throughout OSM. Anyway, I'll support any reasonable proposal, we need a promotable solution. David PS - I suspect we can do better than any f the existing ones you listed below :-) http://www.sanidumps.com/ http://openpois.net/ http://www.poi-factory.com/ http://www.rvdumps.com/ http://rvdumpsites.net/about/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/ra/RVStations.htm http://www.dot.state.mn.us/restareas/pdf/dumpstationslist.pdf And then the proposal should follow the existing situation. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwaste_disposal so tag amenity=waste_disposal -exists waste=dump_station - new That is how I see it .. either; you stick with the present system i.e.all waste goes under either amenity=waste_basket or amenity=waste_disposal OR go with a new top level tag ... waste_collection=* - To say there is no support for a new top level tag waste_collection=* based on the talk here .. well there are lots of people not saying anything .. possibly they have nothing to add, or just see it as a good idea and may vote later or see it as a lost cause. I too would like to see them speak up - any direction they chose. But so few speak up. a few more vote. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
Andreas Goss wrote on 2015-02-17 22:02: If people really continute to use this tag I will use it for everything run by the chatholic church in Germany, after all they are the largest private land owner... Then they can have fun with their church yards. the tag is about land_use_, not land_ownership_ AFAIK we do not want to tag ownership in OSM. fly wrote on 2015-02-17 22:14: I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any landuse. on which area description? As far as I understand there can be only one landuse but neither the proposal nor the wiki page really faces the problem especially regarding deprecating other landuse like cemetery without offering a replacement. it is probably for historic reasons that cemetery slipped into the landuse category. It would be logical to migrate it to amenities, such as graveyard. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
Am 17.02.2015 um 22:40 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: Andreas Goss wrote on 2015-02-17 22:02: If people really continute to use this tag I will use it for everything run by the chatholic church in Germany, after all they are the largest private land owner... Then they can have fun with their church yards. the tag is about land_use_, not land_ownership_ AFAIK we do not want to tag ownership in OSM. and religious is no land use, exactly. fly wrote on 2015-02-17 22:14: I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any landuse. on which area description? I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or appropriate tag to the area. The same is true for supermarket with there own area including parking. No problem to tag the whole area shop=supermarket. For buildings we have building=*. Maybe we just lack of a proper tag to describe the area but landuse=religious is a poor answer. Anyway, we probably need more of the primary tags anyway as people look at things from different perspectives and we already have the same scenario with landuse=forest vs natural=woods vs land_cover=tree. As far as I understand there can be only one landuse but neither the proposal nor the wiki page really faces the problem especially regarding deprecating other landuse like cemetery without offering a replacement. it is probably for historic reasons that cemetery slipped into the landuse category. It would be logical to migrate it to amenities, such as graveyard. I understand landuse=cementry as a land use but not religious. Anyway we are using amenity=hospital for the whole area without any use of landuse. Cheers ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
fly wrote on 2015-02-17 23:12: I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any landuse. on which area description? I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or appropriate tag to the area. I have. The same is true for supermarket with there own area including parking. No problem to tag the whole area shop=supermarket. For buildings we have building=*. I have a problem with this method. DIY markets here do their trading within the building and fenced outdoor areas. That's the shop, within and without building. Together with facilities like car parks, often shared among shops, they form the landuse=retail. Maybe we just lack of a proper tag to describe the area but landuse=religious is a poor answer. Anyway, we probably need more of the primary tags anyway as people look at things from different perspectives and we already have the same scenario with landuse=forest vs natural=woods vs land_cover=tree. As far as I understand there can be only one landuse but neither the proposal nor the wiki page really faces the problem especially regarding deprecating other landuse like cemetery without offering a replacement. it is probably for historic reasons that cemetery slipped into the landuse category. It would be logical to migrate it to amenities, such as graveyard. I understand landuse=cementry as a land use but not religious. Anyway we are using amenity=hospital for the whole area without any use of landuse. There are plenty of cemeteries that are dominated by a particular religion. The general problem I see is that people cite historic inconsistencies in the current tagging scheme as arguments against improvements. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast
2015-02-17 1:07 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: I like the easy distinction between mast and tower by the guy wires. If it is technically correct .. actually it isn't working in all cases, there are hybrid towers (still called towers) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 06:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: ... Trying to invent as few new tags as possible the updated proposal would become: * power_supply=nema_5_15 * power_supply:schedule= [...] - has syntax as defined for opening_hours Or * power_supply=nema_5_15 * power_supply:schedule= intermittent Or do you feel that power_supply:intermittent=yes is better than power_supply:schedule= intermittent? I prefer power_supply:schedule= approach, then a range of possible values including intermittent. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
I added two sections to the wiki - Purpose and limitations to try to spell out what we talked about. I also wrote that POW on an area as a landuse for most uses will be superseded by landuse=religious, and the POW tag is very important as a tag for a building or physical object that resides inside the larger landuse. I gave an example as to why that is the case. Please let me know if that clarifies the landuse sufficiently. PS I want to use the same exact line of reasoning For landuse=civic (civic_admin, civic_service). Javbw On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:51 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Feb 17, 2015, at 1:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-16 14:20 GMT+01:00 John Willis jo...@mac.com: So far I have not experienced a problem with adding religion and denomination tags to features operated by a religious community and have continued to use the same landuse I'd use otherwise on the same kind of feature (if any). What would I gain by adding landuse=religious? To map the _grounds_ of religious facilities where the predominant use is worship, and support facilities for the meeting and rituals and various things happen. OK, I think I finally understood the definition, and I agree that landuse=religious is a fine tag for these (e.g. including the parking of the church). IMHO the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreligious should be corrected to be as explicit as you have been here today. I'll try to update the wiki today (though I wasn't involved with this page's creation) and I'll ask for feedback here when I am done. The words ground of religious facilities and predominant use of worship are crucial here IMHO --- for instance a place where the politics or administration of a church are managed won't qualify under this definition (but should be tagged as commercial I guess, right? We could still add a religion tag there). Still there will be some strangeness in some cases, as we already have established landuse=cemetery, which might also qualify in some cases for landuse=religious. Although the churches in California I know of do not have a cemetery on the grounds, every single temple here in Japan does - even the ones in Tokyo, so finding a very old cemetery hemmed in by a 25 story building, a train line, a river, and residential housing (and still on the temple grounds) is common. There are stand-alone cemeteries as well, and most neighborhoods have little tiny 5x5m or so somewhat private cemeteries everywhere (every 2-300m or so) over all of Japan, so I am not saying they are all landuse=religious, but some larger ones on the temple grounds certainly are, and it is an amenity of the temple - it's a big deal/expense to have a family grave on the temple grounds. Can you have nested landuses? It is clearly part of the temple grounds, and clearly a cemetery. I would tag it that way, but I don't know if I'm breaking done rule by doing that. Javbw cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
What other uses exist in practice in addition to *waste=chemical_toilet? * For camping we have run into two cases I would like to have covered: 1. Disposal of chemical toilet contents: a place where you carry a tank to empty and clean it 2. A sink in the street: you drive your RV over it to empty waste water tanks that are fixed in the car Or do you also want to cover split collection of glass, plastic, organic material, etc.? Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 12:16:29 PM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: I'm lurking but you know where I stand on this tag. +1 for amenity=dump_station Cheers, Dave On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:50 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank. Bryce, I agree, my own interest here is I'm heading out on a trip, in an RV, in a couple of months. I'd like to map these things, need to know where they are. My particular interest here is camping and emptying my holding tank, but there is a huge list of other people who have some other pet need. I understand the community is (reportedly) reluctant to cater to each of those needs individually with yet another amenity tag. Maybe I am wrong, lets see who stands up ? There is a common icon: http://www.broomfield.org/images/pages/N331/blue%20heading%20icons_rv% 20dump.png Truth is, we'll need a lot of use before the rendering people can help. amenity=waste_disposal + waste=chemical_toilet is a nested tag, and far less clear. Someone searching for a preset for this might not find it. And it's not entirely clear exactly what the waste is (the toilet or the contents of the toilet)? Not sure I agree. If we document it properly, its searchable and pretty easy to tag. And we say amenity=waste_disposal and the waste is XXX. Agree I'd prefer a high level tag but its not bad like that, really. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
